That poster's argument was that underrotation was not an unfair advantage. My point was that it is, given that too much of it is explicitly prohibited.

And you've all missed a previous point made about Yu-Na Kim's landing on the second lutz--that by the time the blade was on the ice, she was within the 1/4 mark anyway. The only way you can argue she wasn't within the 1/4 mark is if you take a starting point of after she started pre-rotating--which is wrong since pre-rotation is supposed to count towards the total rotation of the jump, and if you applied that standard towards all other skaters, all their jumps would be UR as well. But some of the posters in this thread took screenshots using a ridiculous starting point of the jump to show as "evidence" that she underrotated the landings by 180 degrees or whatever.

Yes, I suppose you can argue about what point the toepick hit the ice, but if you've watched a lot of skaters' jumps in slow-mo, you'd be surprised at how many of them would be considered UR if you take the absolutely first moment when the toepick makes microscopic contact with the ice as the landing point.

No. Lol. Stop.

Read my post. I think it's clear enough that anyone should be able to understand the issue.

The jump was UR. Just... Wow. It's like arguing with a cult of people who claim 1 + 1 = 4 here...

Why don't you stop with your obsessive yet condescending, relentlessly anti-Kim, pro-Sotnikova posts that completely lack objectivity and fairness? I know exactly who you are, "Components", because in spite of your name change, your arguments have remained the same under various pseudonyms--here, and on other skating blogs. You harp on Yu-Na's lutz and other alleged weaknesses; you ignore valid arguments about Sotnikova's flutz, underrotated jumps, and the debated footwork levels that were the original subject of this thread.

It's actually disturbing how you selectively ignore facts and apply your knowledge to support what is a simple biased opinion--you didn't like much in Kim's skating, you liked Sotnikova's. In the end, you're just the same as the hardcore fans of skaters you're dismissive of in believing what you want to believe, yet you flaunt an air of superiority and objectivity through it all. The fact that you claimed to be in favor of "fair arguments" regarding Sotnikova is pure hypocrisy when your own arguments have not been built on objectivity or fairness or with honest intentions in an honest debate.

I don't post on skating blogs by the way. If you know who I am, then surely you know that I spend most of my time on another forum, where these types of discussions generally aren't done, and certainly not in this manner when they are... Conspiracy theories are still fun, though. Humor me.

I've made it pretty easy to understand, so if you fail to its cause you choose not to.

Also, I've never been dismissive of Sotnikova's UR. I've only been interested in knowing why you people continuously harp on it while ignoring Yuna's URs that she clearly got away with. I mean, any excuse is believable when it comes to justifying clear faults in her technical elements yet the people who point them out (in a pretty undeniable fashion, mind you) or do it for another skater are Pro-Sotnikova Anti-Kim haters? A bit of a stretch, don't you think? You show them pictures and video, and they blatantly deny what is obvious. It's like showing someone a picture of a Cat and having them tell you it's a Giraffe, and then try to defend it.

My post broke it down pretty well for you. If you don't want to accept it that's on you. My last post pretty much summed up how I feel about discussing these matters here. If they can't win with facts or fail at geometry, people resort to battling with reports, instead :-) If you do not like the manner in which I post or the content of my posts, when it is unfavorable to your favorite skater, then IGNORE me. I don't have a problem with that.

I didn't change the subject of this thread.

It's as if you people completely ignore facts and then blame it on some sort of deep-seated bias while still pushing forth the same faulty arguments.

P.S. Everything you wrote in your post was wrong. That's why I was dismissive. It was DEAD WRONG.

And you've all missed a previous point made about Yu-Na Kim's landing on the second lutz--that by the time the blade was on the ice, she was within the 1/4 mark anyway.

Apparently you missed the previous Video and Photos that show that jump being clearly short and obviously UR. That's why I started my reply with those words, because I stopped reading your post at this sentence. Again, read my post, and reply to it and then go from there if you wish to continue conversing with me: about both Sotnikova's (which I have said was clearly UR, it's just that no one here disagrees with it so it doesn't really get much discussion due to that) or Yuna's URs (gets tons of debate cause people get hysterical when these things are pointed out about her) which were overlooked by the technical panel.

For the last time. The moment the toe pick is on the ice, that's the point at which the landing is judged. The tech panel can [and do] easily gauge rotation by simply looking at the angle of the blade vs. the direction the jump travels in. The angle of the skate in relation to the direction of the jump determines how short of rotation the jump is. The judges don't wait for her to start gliding back before they check the rotation, they check rotation at the instance the toe pick touches the ice. If it was as others say it is, there would hardly ever be any jumps called UR in competition, since many skaters will actually UR and finish the rest of the rotation on the toe pick, even (and indeed, I've seen lower level skaters with doubles that did exactly this, they basically landed flat on the pick and didn't put the skate on its rocker until they had finished rotating... on the ice - it's still a UR jump, but nice try :-) ).

For the last time. The amount of pre-rotation on take-off is not factored in when determining if a jump is under-rotated. That is checked if the skater is thought to have pre-rotated too far to cheat the jump by removing too much rotation (more than allowed) at the front end of jump execution. The only thing that is checked is the angle at which the skate comes into contact with the ice relative to the direction of travel when it touches back down to the ice. Calling a jump UR for a landing being short has nothing to do with the take-off and the take-off is never taken into consideration. That whole line of thought is not only faulty, it's flat out wrong and judging by some other posts/threads on the forum it is also confusing some people.

I think this may deserve pictures to get the point across, and perhaps I'll do that if I feel the need to be artistically challenged.

The takeoff is always taken into consideration. That's why skaters' triple toe loops are downgraded when they do toe axels. Its also why it is so very difficult to get credit for a triple loop as the second jump in a combination-the mechanics of the jump lead to it being excessively pre-rotated, on average. Any slight ur on landing and the jump is downgraded.

A clear forward (backward for Axel type jump) take off will be considered as a downgraded jump. The toe loop is the most commonly cheated on take-off jump. The Technical Panel may only watch the replay in regular speed to determine the cheat and downgrade on the take off (more often in combinations or sequences

Why don't you stop with your obsessive yet condescending, relentlessly anti-Kim, pro-Sotnikova posts that completely lack objectivity and fairness? I know exactly who you are, "Components", because in spite of your name change, your arguments have remained the same under various pseudonyms--here, and on other skating blogs. You harp on Yu-Na's lutz and other alleged weaknesses; you ignore valid arguments about Sotnikova's flutz, underrotated jumps, and the debated footwork levels that were the original subject of this thread.

It's actually disturbing how you selectively ignore facts and apply your knowledge to support what is a simple biased opinion--you didn't like much in Kim's skating, you liked Sotnikova's. In the end, you're just the same as the hardcore fans of skaters you're dismissive of in believing what you want to believe, yet you flaunt an air of superiority and objectivity through it all. The fact that you claimed to be in favor of "fair arguments" regarding Sotnikova is pure hypocrisy when your own arguments have not been built on objectivity or fairness or with honest intentions in an honest debate.

That's exactly the reason why a casual fan like myself doesn't take any Yuna was robbed songs seriously.

The takeoff is always taken into consideration. That's why skaters' triple toe loops are downgraded when they do toe axels.

Everyone agrees on this. What there is disagreement on is whether prerotating less than one is allowed to permits a skater to "hook" an underrotated landing and still get full credit, which contradicts a clear statement in the rules about being 1/4 short on the landing.

Interpreting the rules as BOP and others have, in which a triple should rotate 2 1/4 or more, a toe axel should be acceptable if it is overrotated at the end. To them, the prerotate by < 1/2 and finish < 1/4 mean nothing and a skater should be allowed to ignore one of those by making up the rotation at the beginning or end.

How is saying that a jump has to be within 1/4 of complete rotation "completely lack(ing) objectivity and fairness" when the rule says that. Components is not injecting any non-logical definition into that rule, he is just interpreting it as written. Saying a jump has to be be within 1/4 of complete rotation "sometimes" (i.e. not if someone prerotates less than most others) is adding something subjective to the rule that isn't there. How is that contributing to an honest debate?

Nah, drivingmissdaisy has flip-flopped her stance so much to suit her pro-Sotnikova arguments (and has been called out on it several times) that it makes one's head spin.

I suppose you can attack me personally if you'd like, but pointing out a rule that supports what we're saying, or video/still images that support what we're saying, or citing experts who agree with the outcome is hardly flip-flopping. You response has been to try to rewrite the < rule in a way that contradicts the rule itself, to completely ignore video evidence and/or basic physics, and attack anyone's credibility who disagrees with you (i.e. Johnny can't be objective because he loves Russia. Tara and Elvis only care about jumps so how can they be objective, etc.). Seven members of the judging panel (probably) favored Sotnikova in the LP when she did more technically than Yuna, the panel had Adelina on par with Yuna in the SP when Yuna did a harder program. I'll remind you that the judges in the SP were from: USA, CAN, ITA, GER, GBR, JPN, SWE, Slovakia, and South Korea (I know you think I'm lying, but look for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_...gles#Responses). That group of judges thought Adelina was on par with Yuna, even doing an easier program. Why is it so hard for you to believe that a panel would give Adelina the win when she actually did a harder program than Yuna?

^I myself have never waded deeply the technical debate about under-rotations. I have not expressed any opinions on the youtube videos, nor have I made any remarks attributing Johnny's love for Russia, Tara's favoritism, Putin sitting with ISU head, the judge hugging Sotnikova to be valid evidence that Kim "wuzrobbed".

Your flip-flopping comes from instances such as saying 1) judges need to be strictly objective when judging Kostner/Kim/all skaters, then 2) it's acceptable for judges to be swayed by home-crowd cheers for Sotnikova and let that affect their scoring. What a blatant 180-degree about-face. Don't try to change your tune and pretend that I'm calling you out on something I'm not.

GREAT JOB on mis-attributing words to me AGAIN. Perhaps I should start keeping track of how many times you utilize that technique (along with the multiple other logical fallacies you always commit). This is why your arguments can't be taken seriously.

For the record, I stated my misapprehensions about judging right after the SP took place, as did several other posters who called bullsh*t. I believe Pangtongfan made a quite a profit by switching his bets to Sotnikova right after seeing which direction the wind was blowing after the SP (at least he's putting his money where his mouth is). People were already expressing legitimate doubts as far back as the Euros.

For the record, I stated my misapprehensions about judging right after the SP took place, as did several other posters who called bullsh*t. I believe Pangtongfan made a quite a profit by switching his bets to Sotnikova right after seeing which direction the wind was blowing after the SP (at least he's putting his money where his mouth is). People were already expressing legitimate doubts as far back as the Euros.

If you position is that only by cheating can a panel of judges that represent USA, CAN, ITA, GER, GBR, JPN, SWE, Slovakia, and South Korea find that Adelina is Yuna's equal, then I can't argue with that. I can only provide things like written rules, still images, and interviews, none of which you care about at all. I really don't see how bizarre conversations about a poster's betting habits relates to the discussion about whether Yuna underrotated her 3Lz. When confronted with evidence you resort to attacking me, which really doesn't address the actual thing we are discussing at all.

But I ask you a serious question: which judges from USA, CAN, ITA, GER, GBR, JPN, SWE, Slovakia, and South Korea do you think were "in on it"? The technical panel didn't give Adelina that monster PCS or GOE, those judges did.

I brought up Pangtongfan as example of one of the posters who expressed doubts about the SP, since you yourself brought up the SP. I called you out on changing your stances several times in the past in this thread on other discussion factors, which is what jaylee refers to in a broad sense when she talks about your lack of objectivity and fairness, and hypocrisy (which is what I originally was responding to) and brings into question your credibility.

Why does it matter that I specifically call out which judges (whose scorecards were randomized) were "in on it"? My opinion has always been that the judging for FS at Sochi across multiple disciplines (with the exception of men's) was suspicious, and very obviously so in the women's, and there should be an investigation conducted by a separate body looking into ALL of the judges for BOTH SP and LP. There is no logical merit for thinking that anyone who cannot provide infallible evidence of which judges cheated, how they cheated, and why they cheated is speaking out of their behinds and should be dismissed. You look at the situation and work backwards from there. Investigations are launched when there are suspicions and questions to FIND evidence, or to establish lack of strong evidence. Legal 101 here.

IWhy does it matter that I specifically call out which judges (whose scorecards were randomized) were "in on it"? My opinion has always been that the judging for FS at Sochi across multiple disciplines (with the exception of men's) was suspicious, and very obviously so in the women's, and there should be an investigation conducted by a separate body looking into ALL of the judges for BOTH SP and LP. There is no logical merit for thinking that anyone who cannot provide infallible evidence of which judges cheated, how they cheated, and why they cheated is speaking out of their behinds and should be dismissed. You look at the situation and work backwards from there. Investigations are launched when there are suspicions and questions to FIND evidence, or to establish lack of strong evidence. Legal 101 here.

There are no suspicions other than Yuna fans not liking the outcome. You want to investigate that most of the judges liked both Adelina and Yuna equally? Which of those countries do you feel has an incentive to overscore Adelina and underscore Yuna? In law, we don't just investigate anything when we don't like something. I suppose that is covered in Legal 102.

Blatant misrepresentation, again and again, is another reason why you lack credibility. There are many posters who aren't Yuna fans who expressed their misgivings about the outcome, here and elsewhere. The SL blog, aka the biggest skating blog out there? I would hardly call the people behind that blog Yuna ubers. When one start dismissing people's views by labeling those people (or mislabeling in your case), you know that its grasping at straws.

Anyone is perfectly within reason to launch an investigation when they have suspicions about something, which by nature indicates that they disagree with the outcome. Hello, the ongoing Qatar FIFA controversy due to the findings of US and Australian investigations? Both launched investigations bc they were pissed about the outcome. Neither nation knew which members of the FIFA were bribed, how much they were bribed with at first, and they still investigated because they were 1) dissatisfied and 2) suspicious.

Blatant misrepresentation, again and again, is another reason why you lack credibility.

I don't need credibility or feel a need to misrepresent anything. I agree with the result of the independent judging panel with which you can find no fault with. That SP panel does not lean pro-Russian at all. Even if the LP might slightly (1 or 2 judges), really the LP was scored similar to the SP: Yuna and Adelina about even on PCS, Adelina pulling ahead when she does more technically. When you have convinced me that anyone on the SP panel would have any reason to place Adelina that high aside from her great skating then maybe I'll feel a need to mislead people. Until then I'll just laugh at your unwillingness to consider the valid reasons why Yuna was defeated.